You must log in or register to comment.
Marx and Engels where both reviled by the mainstream liberals during their own time. Only in the late 20th century was Marx made like this kind demsoc grandpa that only stood for co-ops and liberal values who would have hated Lenin and Stalin “who obviously misunderstood him and Engels”. It’s also partly because of things like the new left and frankfurt school, Marx has his name slapped into everything from animal rights to art critique and other things that have nothing to do with class struggle and that has taken the edge off in the eyes of the liberals.
It’s however absolutely right that all the bad communists, the vile dictators and authoritarians are those who stood up to the west and capitalism, fought the porkies, won, didn’t get couped afterward and actually built something resembling real socialism. People like Lenin and Stalin are hated precisely because they succeeded and didn’t get crushed by the forces of reaction.There is also the radlib phenomena where they are allergic to any contradiction in real living world. The further a revolution goes the more contradictions and problems there are to work through. So you can really be pure and represent “real socialism” if you never really tried or got a chance to put anything into practice or died a martyr at the early stages with untested ideas. If you succeed and have to test and develop stuff, fight and compromise you become a dirty creature of “not real socialism”.
Animal rights has a place in Marxism
Animal rights are not defensible as a Marxist point of view. The basis of Marxism is working people and others marginalized under Capitalism joining in solidarity and using their collective power to overturn Capitalism and establish a dictatorship of the working class.
While animals are marginalized under Capitalism, they can neither engage in solidarity nor do they have any power to express in a collective movement.
You may believe that exploitation is animals is immoral, but Marxism is not a moralistic ideology, and there is no direct Marxist justification for animal rights.
If you trained a machine to feel pain when mistreated, desire freedom, and fear death; but it would still perform its function for whoever exploits it, Worker or Capitalist; there would be no Scientific Marxist justification for workers to cease exploitation of the machine.
The way “animal rights” framed as in agriculture, how our food-systems in both logistics and livestock-care are handled by the workers absolutely has importance to in a Marxist view…bird flu is one pertinent example I could think of.
so are you gonna say that climate change has no place in marxism because trees cant organise themselves?
I understand where you’re coming from but I think the answer is that a capital M ‘Marxist understanding of climate change’ would be centred in ‘climate change as an issue that affects the human ability to maintain organised civilisation’ rather than the perspective that the planet and it’s ecosystems are worth maintaining for their own sake.
Humans are not disconnected from the ecosystem. The wellbeing of animals is also the wellbeing of humans.
I am not saying I disagree with you, I’m just saying that the origins of Marxism is in an age of Western philosophy where “nature” was very much regarded as separate and indeed subservient to humanity, and that the ‘traditional Marxist lens’ on climate change would be “this should be fixed because it will negatively affect the development of socialism”. I think that with the knowledge and advancements we’ve made since the 1800’s we obviously need a different philosophical approach to the situation.
Wouldn’t the machine become a worker (a very specialized one) if it manged to gain consciousness?
The difference between such a machine and a worker is that the worker has the power to withhold their labor and a machine (or animal) does not. An animal will never show solidarity with the workers’ movement.
I’m not saying that animal rights are bad. I’m generally in favor of them. But they have nothing to do with Marxism. In fact, I would call any call to have solidarity with a group incapable of or unwilling to have solidarity with the general workers’ movement to be a form of Ultra-Leftism.
And I’d appreciate people not over-extending this analogy. Some workers are queer, or immigrants, or disabled. Most are female or colored. These are all people who have the agency and incentive to show solidarity with the Socialist movement. Animals have neither agency nor incentive.
That’s not to say that there is no Marxist justification for working with or even making concessions to Vegans. They make up a significant part of the general left-wing movement and animal rights are a bargaining chip that may be used to gain their support when it is strategically necessary. And, again, I am in favor of some animal rights - I just recognize that that is coming from the moral side of my brain and not the scientific side.
The way “animal rights” framed as in agriculture, how our food-systems in both logistics and livestock-care are handled by the workers absolutely has importance to in a Marxist view…bird flu is one pertinent example I could think of.
Is this purposeful ignorance of this question, or are you waiting to get to it? Because you are quick to label things as “ultra-leftist” and act begrudging on concessions towards Vegans and acting like having a sober analysis of our current food-systems and deciding that the things we consume and their relation to the workers is a primary concern isn’t reasonable? Or am I misinterpreting your dismissive attitude?
In addition, you danced around the question. “a machine (or animal) does not.” Suppose if a machine did gain undeniable consciousness…is that not relevant to Marxist discussion because it does not yet show solidarity? A new life-form created under an economic system that would immediately be entitled to it’s labor and life in totality? There’s nothing there to analyze and that’s over-extension?
Also, unrelated, what does “Plague Rat Settler” mean, exactly?
edit: Nice. A downvote and no response.
deleted by creator
i dont know if id put marx at that place, in the global south Marx is almost treated as lucifer lol. gramsci is funny because the average person doesn’t know him
In the west, Marx is presented as being well meaning but completely irrelevant.
Unless you happen to be one of the people in the west the upper class needs to actually be able to understand reality, then he is crucial.
Like i have a lawyer friend who had to study both marx, engels and max weber as its essential to understanding UK law. If your job requires you to interpret complex social reality their is just no substitute.
For sure, and I’d argue that the ruling class in the west understands Marxism quite well in general. They know they’re fighting a class war.
i dont know if id put marx at that place, in the global south Marx is almost treated as lucifer lol.
What do you mean? I can think of a lot of places in the global south where marx is appreciated
I think that really varies by country and community
Hot take. Thanks
